The Supreme Court will soon decide two cases that could further limit employers’ rights in their dealings with employee unions. Read the New York Times article here.

The first case will decide whether employers have the right to agree to remain neutral during a union organizing drive. (Shouldn’t employers be able to allow their employees to make their own decisions about union representation? In many worksites, unions and employers work cooperatively because they share the same goals. Why should federal law require the employer-union relationship to be adversarial, rather than cooperative?)

The second case attempts to impose “Right to Work” on the whole country through a court decision — rather than leaving it up to each state to decide for itself whether to limit employers’ rights. (What happened to that old Tenth Amendment/states’ rights principle?)

The second case also challenges whether a state government has the right to allow union representation of home-care workers who are paid by Medicaid. (Again: are we about to see the federal court system restrict a state government’s exercise of reserved powers?)

And then there’s Boeing. Just my personal opinion, but… it sure seems to me like Boeing is setting up another chance to litigate all those legal theories it came up with in 2011, back before the Machinists asked the NLRB to drop its complaint about Dreamliner production. The basic question at issue: whether a company has the right to relocate jobs in retaliation for (legally protected) union activity. That 2011 complaint was part of “a very long line of cases that the NLRB has been pressing since the 1940s, when employers began moving work from unionized workplaces in the industrial Northeast to non-unionized workplaces in the Southeast and later the Southwest.” Just think what the impact on unions could be, if Boeing persuades the courts to agree with its legal theories. (Read more NHLN coverage of Boeing here.)

Why am I so concerned about these Court cases (and potential court cases) ? Well… because the Supreme Court is now headed up by Bush appointee John Roberts. Back in 2005, he was described as one of the “three possible nominees that big business would cheer” — in part because they thought Roberts might “influence the court to decide more cases deemed critical to business.” Quoting one observer of that nomination process: “Roberts has spent his career as a mind-for-hire on behalf of the rightwing Republican agenda.” Quoting another: “if Roberts feels free to overturn precedent… Of particular concern is a return to the Lochner era, a time when free-market capitalists read their ideology into the Constitution by striking down statutes aimed at protecting workers’ health and safety.”

I guess we’re about to find out whether those observers were as accurate in their predictions as President Harry Truman was, in his.

He filed the bill on Friday, November 21, 2003 – almost exactly 40 years after the death of President John F. Kennedy.

A coincidence? Not likely. Here’s the back story:

The Employee Free Choice Act would restore union organizing rights that were taken away by the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act. John F. Kennedy was a member of the Congress that passed Taft-Hartley.

“The first thing I did in Congress was to become the junior Democrat on the labor committee. At the time we were considering the Taft-Hartley Bill. I was against it, and one day in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, I debated the bill with a junior Republican on that committee who was for it . . . his name was Richard Nixon.” [from a 1960 recording of President Kennedy reflecting on his career]

Both Kennedy and Nixon believed that Nixon won that debate. And just weeks later, Congress passed the Taft-Hartley Act, overriding a veto by President Harry Truman.

President Truman was eerily accurate in his predictions of what the Taft-Hartley Act would do.

“The Taft-Hartley bill is a shocking piece of legislation. It is unfair to the working people of this country. It clearly abuses the right, which millions of our citizens now enjoy, to join together and bargain with their employers for fair wages and fair working conditions. …”

“I fear that this type of legislation would cause the people of our country to divide into opposing groups. If conflict is created, as this bill would create it—if the seeds of discord are sown, as this bill would sow them—our unity will suffer and our strength will be impaired.”

“When one penetrates the complex, interwoven provisions of this omnibus bill, and understands the real meaning of its various parts, the result is startling. … the National Labor Relations Act would be converted from an instrument with the major purpose of protecting the right of workers to organize and bargain collectively into a maze of pitfalls and complex procedures. … The bill would deprive workers of vital protection which they now have under the law…. This bill is perhaps the most serious economic and social legislation of the past decade. Its effects–for good or ill–would be felt for decades to come.”

“At some point in my career… I could no longer tell workers that the [National Labor Relations] Act protects their right to form a union. … Over the years, the law has been perverted. It now acts as a sword which is used by employers to frustrate employee freedom of choice and deny them their right to collective bargaining. When workers want to form a union to bargain with their employer, the NLRB election process, which was originally established as their means to this end, now provides a virtually insurmountable series of practical, procedural, and legal obstacles.”

“Each year in the United States, more than 23,000 workers are fired or penalized for union activity. Aided by a weak labor law system that fails to protect workers’ rights, employers manipulate the current process of establishing union representation in a manner that undemocratically gives them the power to significantly influence the outcome of union representation elections. … Union membership in the United States is not declining because workers no longer want or need unions. Instead, falling union density is directly related to employers’ near universal and systematic use of legal and illegal tactics to stymie workers’ union organizing.”

“Our findings suggest that the aspirations for representation are being thwarted by a coercive and punitive climate for organizing that goes unrestrained due to a fundamentally flawed regulatory regime … many of the employer tactics that create a punitive and coercive atmosphere are, in fact, legal. Unless serious labor law reform with real penalties is enacted, only a fraction of the workers who seek representation under the National Labor Relations Act will be successful. If recent trends continue, then there will no longer be a functioning legal mechanism to effectively protect the right of private-sector workers to organize and collectively bargain.”

Now, go back and consider President Truman’s most serious prediction from 66 years ago: that the Taft-Hartley Act “would cause the people of our country to divide into opposing groups. If conflict is created, as this bill would create it—if the seeds of discord are sown, as this bill would sow them—our unity will suffer and our strength will be impaired.”

Think about our national politics. Isn’t our country divided enough? Isn’t it time to reverse the process started by the Taft-Hartley Act?

It’s been a decade since Sen. Kennedy first filed the Employee Free Choice Act. Next week, we will mark a half-century since President John F. Kennedy died.

Isn’t it time to yank the roots of discord, start ending the conflict, and heal the division that was created by the Taft-Hartley Act?

————

To my long-time readers: apologies if this sounds familiar. Once again, I have just updated last year’s post to reflect the passage of time; there was no reason to write a new post, because things haven’t changed. So instead of trying to reword things I’ve already said, I’m just going to start using a new hashtag: #dejavu. (You can see all my repeats in one place!)

Actually, it’s not exactly true that “things haven’t changed.” In this case they are changing — they’re getting worse. But more on that, tomorrow.

On May 4th, the New Hampshire state federation of the AFL-CIO held their bi-annual convention at the Grand Hotel in North Conway, NH. The event was attended by over 50 delegates, representing many different unions from around the state. They were teachers from AFT, to film and sound techs from IATSE, electricians from IBEW, to air traffic controllers from NATCA. The focus of the convention was to talk about the great things that the NH AFL-CIO and its affiliated unions have done in New Hampshire over the last two years. And to talk about how we need to change and grow to move into a new generation of unions and organizing.

Over the past two years the NH AFL-CIO and organized labor have fought back against the extreme right wing of the New Hampshire Legislature who were pushing every anti-union and anti-worker bill they could dig up from ALEC. Most notably was the nearly two year battle over Right To Work. Upholding Governor Lynch’s veto was the single greatest legislative accomplishment for the NH AFL-CIO and all working families.

After a short trip down memory lane by NH AFL-CIO President Mark MacKenzie, the tone shifted. “At no time has labor’s role been more important” said President MacKenzie.

Now we as organized labor need to work with our communities for real immigration reform. We must ensure that every worker is treated fairly, is paid accordingly, and has the protections we fought so hard to get in place.

This theme also lead right into how do we begin to organize those places that have never been able to be organized before? Places like Wal-Mart, Fast Food and Restaurant workers. These are the jobs that need help from organized labor the most right now.

AFL-CIO Secretary-Treasurer Liz Shuler spent most of her time talking about how we need to fight back against the attacks from the right wing extremists and expand our base. This is a battle for all working people, not just those who are covered by a union contract. We need to do everything we can to stop the austerity budget plans from Washington that are slowly pulling our country apart. The Tea Party lead House is trying to continue this race to the bottom with more cuts to programs like Head Start and Meals on Wheels. “What about the children who have been kicked out of Head Start due to the Sequester” said Shuler. “Sequester is just a fancy word for stupid idea” Shuler continued.

Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter knows all to well how the sequester is effecting people. She hears about it every day. People calling her office to get her to do something about it. “Can’t you just pass something to end the sequester” people would ask. Yes, she told the crowd, if we could get our bills onto the floor of the US House. Congresswoman Shea-Porter told the crowd, “there are three political parties in Washington right now. The Democrats, the Republicans and the Republican study group also know as the Tea Party.” The power of the Tea Party and their leader, Speaker John Boehner is what is creating this disfunction in Washington.

The NH AFL-CIO also welcomed State Senator Andrew Hosmer to speak. He talked of the current situation in the NH Senate. He pushed for the passage of the expanded gambling bill to help create new jobs for the NH Building Trades. That message was echoed by State Representative (and former AFGE member and Federal Marshal) Steve Shurtleff. Rep Shurtleff reminded us how times have changed now that Speaker O’Brien is not in control. He ws there every session waiting for the Speaker to pull Right To Work up for a vote. Both Sen. Hosmer and Rep Shurtleff said they would do whatever was needed to stand up for working families and the workers rights to organize.

(More in-depth stories on each of the speeches at the NH AFLCIO convention later this week)

He filed the bill on Friday, November 21, 2003 – almost exactly 40 years after the death of President John F. Kennedy.

A coincidence? Not likely. Here’s the back story:

The Employee Free Choice Act would restore union organizing rights that had been effectively stripped by the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act. John F. Kennedy was a member of the Congress that passed Taft-Hartley.

“The first thing I did in Congress was to become the junior Democrat on the labor committee. At the time we were considering the Taft-Hartley Bill. I was against it, and one day in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, I debated the bill with a junior Republican on that committee who was for it . . . his name was Richard Nixon.” [from a 1960 recording of President Kennedy reflecting on his career]

Both Kennedy and Nixon believed that Nixon won that debate. Weeks later, Congress passed the Taft-Hartley Act, overriding a veto by President Harry Truman.

President Truman was eerily accurate in his predictions of what the Taft-Hartley Act would do.

“The Taft-Hartley bill is a shocking piece of legislation. It is unfair to the working people of this country. It clearly abuses the right, which millions of our citizens now enjoy, to join together and bargain with their employers for fair wages and fair working conditions. …”

“I fear that this type of legislation would cause the people of our country to divide into opposing groups. If conflict is created, as this bill would create it—if the seeds of discord are sown, as this bill would sow them—our unity will suffer and our strength will be impaired.”

“When one penetrates the complex, interwoven provisions of this omnibus bill, and understands the real meaning of its various parts, the result is startling. … the National Labor Relations Act would be converted from an instrument with the major purpose of protecting the right of workers to organize and bargain collectively into a maze of pitfalls and complex procedures. … The bill would deprive workers of vital protection which they now have under the law…. This bill is perhaps the most serious economic and social legislation of the past decade. Its effects–for good or ill–would be felt for decades to come.”

“At some point in my career… I could no longer tell workers that the [National Labor Relations] Act protects their right to form a union. … Over the years, the law has been perverted. It now acts as a sword which is used by employers to frustrate employee freedom of choice and deny them their right to collective bargaining. When workers want to form a union to bargain with their employer, the NLRB election process, which was originally established as their means to this end, now provides a virtually insurmountable series of practical, procedural, and legal obstacles.”

“Each year in the United States, more than 23,000 workers are fired or penalized for union activity. Aided by a weak labor law system that fails to protect workers’ rights, employers manipulate the current process of establishing union representation in a manner that undemocratically gives them the power to significantly influence the outcome of union representation elections. … Union membership in the United States is not declining because workers no longer want or need unions. Instead, falling union density is directly related to employers’ near universal and systematic use of legal and illegal tactics to stymie workers’ union organizing.”

“Our findings suggest that the aspirations for representation are being thwarted by a coercive and punitive climate for organizing that goes unrestrained due to a fundamentally flawed regulatory regime … many of the employer tactics that create a punitive and coercive atmosphere are, in fact, legal. Unless serious labor law reform with real penalties is enacted, only a fraction of the workers who seek representation under the National Labor Relations Act will be successful. If recent trends continue, then there will no longer be a functioning legal mechanism to effectively protect the right of private-sector workers to organize and collectively bargain.”

Now, go back and consider President Truman’s most serious prediction from 65 years ago: that the Taft-Hartley Act “would cause the people of our country to divide into opposing groups. If conflict is created, as this bill would create it—if the seeds of discord are sown, as this bill would sow them—our unity will suffer and our strength will be impaired.”

Think about this past election. Isn’t our country divided enough? Isn’t it time to reverse the process started by the Taft-Hartley Act?

It’s been nine years since Sen. Kennedy first filed the Employee Free Choice Act.

A year from now, we will mark a half-century since President John F. Kennedy died.

Isn’t it time to yank the roots of discord, start ending the conflict, and heal the division that was created by the Taft-Hartley Act?

Advertisement

Advertisement

Keystone Press

Advertisement

Never miss another post! Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email. Never miss another post!

Email Address

DON’T Forget To Like Us On FACEBOOK!

Please help keep the NH Labor News Going

If you would like to help keep the NH Labor News going please give us a donation. Money goes to keeping the website running and more.

Search The NH Labor News Older Posts

Advertise on the NH Labor News

NHLN Supported Charity

The Second Wind Foundation is a non-profit charity that donates 100% of their earnings. The organization is run by retired union activist and friend of the NHLN. Click the image above to go directly to their site to learn more.